Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

But that was when it was posted squarely on the front page. Oh, wait...

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

by boran2 (blogistan@yahoo.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 08:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess is that many of these aghast people don't read the New Yorker very often. Their covers range all over the map. And always have.

by Heart of the Rockies on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST

Excuse me, but to say these things (none / 1)

is to suggest that black people don't read The New Yorker or Vanity Fair, its sister publication, subscription-wise or even reading it in Barnes and (ig)Noble or the library.

They do. I do. Especially, anytime there is a non-white face on the cover of a major magazine, blacks and people of color read it and/or buy it. Also, blacks have other interests than just race. Like cars, cooking, architecture, computers...

I will say that I wasn't upset over this New Yorker cover by Art Spiegelman. However, a lot of people were in light of the tensions between the Lubavitcher Hasidim and its black neighbors in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Also, what was an open secret among some others were that some other Orthodox Jewish men from another sect were using on the sly African American prostitutes in certain parts of New York and this pissed off not a few people, too. If Spiegelman had followed through on his original plan, to portray a black man had been portrayed kissing a Hasidic woman, the New Yorker offices might have been stoned. Spiegelman was really pushing the envelope.

See...not that many people can deal with these kinds of images in context. Among some New York people, this was really offensive. Those who weren't in the know was kind of wondering what the deal was, and wondering how to feel. Me, I had been following the Hasidim-African American controversy for sometime, from where I was in California. These days, people do not dig up and investigate (or use questionable sources) what the facts truly are. They are so much more willing to accept things at face value, because the image says more than a thousand words. TV did that to a lot of people. That's one reason why Faux Noise has a consistent audience and is the corporate media standard.

This is exactly why people are ticked off at this depiction because it has no conflicting context separating reality from fantasy, fact from fiction.

Sometimes when liberals and progressives pick up the tools of the enemy, the resulting concoction could destroy the credibility of their case or even their candidate.

An untypical Negro

http://thisblksistaspage.wordpress.com

by blksista (gab1954@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, but to say these things (4.00 / 2)

I did not mean to imply that black people don't read the New Yorker. I was talking about some of the many comments I waded through on dKos. I definitely understand how it struck a raw nerve with some, but what I was trying to do was put it in context--I've seen many New Yorker covers that would be over the line for people, depending on their sensibilities, life experience, etc. I don't think I could come up with examples, but I've read the magazine for 50 years and many of the covers during that period have been outrageous.

by Heart of the Rockies on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, but to say these things (none / 1)

You shouldn't have to defend yourself against the charge of racism (which was what was implied) for your comment. I read no such intent in your comment. Certainly as a semi frequent reader here I am aware to an extent of your history and your political and social outlook and I know that you aren't prone to racist provocation, ignorance or insult. That would be obvious of 99% of the people who post here.

The line is becoming finer and finer and more difficult to walk, like a minefield many times, for anyone who goes against the Obama grain. That's true of his campaign (whether by design or not) and certainly true of many of his followers, black, white, orange and chartruese.
It's fuckken ugly.

Green Grass and High Tides Forever

by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, but to say these things (none / 0)

I appreciate your sensible comment. I didn't think anything I said had any racist overtones whatsoever and am gratified you took the time to speak up. Gracias.

by Heart of the Rockies on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 10:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What implied charge of racism? (none / 0)

If anything, I believe this person to be misinformed or ignorant as the case may be, at bottom.

I don't have to say how this episode is resounding all over:

All this backslapping about who isn't really racist isn't helpful either.

An untypical Negro

http://thisblksistaspage.wordpress.com

by blksista (gab1954@gmail.com) on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 05:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What implied charge of racism? (none / 0)

"All this backslapping about who isn't really racist isn't helpful either."

It's helpful to all us good 'ol white boys to sit around slapping each other on the back because we live to pull the wool (bamboozle as it were) over the eyes of the negroes.

The comment wasn't racist or race related in any way until you made it racist because you not so subtly implied that Heart of the Rockies believes that black people are too dumb and uncultured to read the NYker. S/he said nothing of the kind. Period.

Green Grass and High Tides Forever

by supersoling (colorsplash62@optonline.net) on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who the f**k are you to claim (none / 0)

what is racist and what is not racist? You can only speak for your own damn self.

I said ignorant at worst and uninformed at best. Quit trying to parse what I said for others, and for picking the poor commenter off the floor when s/he was already standing up.

An untypical Negro

http://thisblksistaspage.wordpress.com

by blksista (gab1954@gmail.com) on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 12:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the New Yorker Cover (3.71 / 7)

2 negative connotations that cannot be overlooked, the burning of the American Flag in the Fire Place, and OBL picture above the fireplace.

It should be pulled, it is not satirical.

by americanforliberty on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:05:50 PM EST

Re: On the New Yorker Cover (4.00 / 5)

That was my thought when I saw it yesterday.

When are we going to see the cover with McCain prancing around wearing Depends, calling Cindy a trollop and C-word, singing about bombing Iran, and telling the world how he hates the gooks?

Oh wait...it isn't satire if it's true.

by CabinGirl on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not satirical? So it's true? Is that what you're so afraid of?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no i'm afraid of the stereotype that people of color are not as patriotic as their lighter skinned brothers and sisters.

by americanforliberty on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then you probably don't like Obama running away from his pastor and his church because they were accused of being anti-American, right?

I don't think anyone on this site likes the stereotype the New Yorker is satirizing. The question is how does Obama, and liberals in general, defeat this stupid stereotype.

Obama has chosen to let the Republicans get away with it when used against him. He has chosen to give credence to these stereotypes by reacting to them by distancing himself from the targets (his church, his pastor, his wife's comments, MoveOn, liberals in general).

And what do you mean, that the New Yorker should be prohibited from publishing this? Or that as a good "liberal" paper it should deal with unfair Republican stereotypes in the same manner as Obama (that is to cower in fear).

by SFHawkguy on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't make sense of your response. You should look at racial undertones of that cover. I think your reasoning is flawed how does one give credence to stereotypes, by moving away from those who use them..mainly his pastor and church.

I guess under your theory, what "Don Imus" said about the Seton Hall women's basketball team was okay??

by americanforliberty on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the New Yorker Cover (2.75 / 4)

I see the racial undertones. I agree there is a huge racial component to the attacks on Obama. That's why the right attacked Rev. Wright and Obama's church and his wife so vigorously. They used racist code words to imply that black churches are less patriotic than white churches. That Michelle Obama's (the future first lady of America) views of America are anti-American. Rev. Wright said largely what MLK said 40 years ago yet he was portrayed as hating America. These racist stereotypes are despicable. Just like what Don Imus said. I am in complete agreement with you on that.

My point is how best one deals with these despicable stereotypes. I call it like I see it and call this racism and give no quarter to these jerks. Obama has chosen to treat these despicable stereotypes with respect. Indeed, his reaction was to try to appease these scumbags. He left his church because white people thought it was too black and too angry. He quit his pastor for the same reason. He's running to the right and selling our 4th Amendment rights down the river (ugh--not a pretty phrase but apt).

I don't see the New Yorker as part of the problem. They are trying to attack the problem through satire. Which is far more effective then the way Obama is trying to "attack" these stereotypes (which isn't really attacking--it's trying to appease).

by SFHawkguy on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But the New Yorker is simply making fun of THE main line of attack that conservatives use against Democrats. My God, you guys ran scared from this line of attack for years. Just last week the Senate gutted the 4th Amendment because Democrats were scared that the Republicans would paint Obama as a terrorist lover burning the American flag in the white house.

It's unfair. Boo Hoo. Poor liberals. Getting teased by the Republicans. And using a childish stereotype to do it.

And to fight this unfair stereotype . . . liberals want to pile on the liberal institution of the New Yorker and yet do nothing against the Republicans that are the main proponents of this unfair stereotype? In fact, you let John McCain take the high road as he condemns the New Yorker!!!!

You guys are brilliant. Brilliant at losing. Nothing says weakness like going crazy over a satirical piece in a liberal magazine when you let all the conservatives get away with it. It's like you Democrats can only muster the courage to fight when it's someone to the left of you. Utter idiocy.

by SFHawkguy on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. That's nearly subliminal advertising for McCain. Unfair.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Major apology in order.

Banned but hopefully not forgotten.

by Mattes on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 06:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can you imagine the National Review publishing a cover with a red-faced McCain, spewing explitives while he drags a bag of lobbyist money, leaving his cripled wife for the trophy wife with her Gucci bag filled with painkillers? No, I can't either.

by RollaMO on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST

That would be essentially true about McCain. So are you saying the NY cover is showing the essential truth about Obama?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny. No one would show anything close to the truth about McCain. The cover shows total cluelessness by the New Yorker about how this will be received by the very people they are trying to lampoon. At least they could have put the picture in a mental or verbal bubble coming out of some Right Wingers mouth. As is, I expect to see it over and over.

by RollaMO on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that mental bubble should have been coming from a picture out of john mccain's head..that way the New Yorker would have had a really edgy cover that would have pissed everyone one off on both sides.

'Poverty is the worst form of violence'--Gandhi

by chocolate ink on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure copies of this cover are being used to re-wallpaper the executive bathroom at Faux News even as we speak.

by CabinGirl on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why must our side be so obsessed with how some racist morons will respond to whatever? Who the hell cares? They'll always find some crap -- it's what they do. The hand wringers are doing far more harm to the cause with their whining and Commisar of Thought pose than this cartoon ever could.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you missed the whole point of the insults.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, I'll bite: what's the whole point?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 03:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. He understands perfectly well the whole point of these insults. The Republicans have based their entire electoral prospects on this insult--that the Democrats hate America and will let the terrorists win. It's the Democratic party that has failed to understand the point of these insults--otherwise they would have easily shrugged off this ridiculous line of attack years ago. Instead, we are yet again going to have a stupid campaign on these trite stereotypes ("I do too love America! I want to bomb Afghanistan.")

And guess how Obama is going to deal with these insults? Just like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton would--running to the right and insulting the left.

That's why Democrats only have the courage to fight those on the left that peddle in these insults (and, of course, to make themselves look as silly as possible they reserve their outrage for a satirical piece).

This whole sorry episode demonstrates what is wrong with mainstream Democrats. They are willing to take on the New Yorker but not the truly pernicious purveyors of this crap (like "Rush Limbuagh").

Democrats only have the courage to condemn those on the left. That's why I predict a bill to censure the New Yorker on the Senate floor this week. And maybe a bill that protects America by outlawing not only actual burning of flags but pictoral depictions of burning flags. It will be co-sponsored by Obama and McCain. They can finally come together and admit that "far-leftists" like the New Yorker are beyond the pale and not fit for polite society. Hmmph. Take that New Yorker and stop hurting Barack Obama!

by SFHawkguy on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But to everyone else, it hasn't been brought up (none / 0)

to be debated, thanks to the MSM. It's true, because we know about it, but it's hardly been talked about in the same breath as Obama's so-called al Qaeda ties because of his middle name.

Any lowdown non-issue, lie and innuendo they'll dig up on Obama and Michelle, but damn if they let anything stick on "Saint" McSame.

That cartoon cover should not have run.

An untypical Negro

http://thisblksistaspage.wordpress.com

by blksista (gab1954@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Larison has the right of it here:

This cover image is slightly different, in that it is trying to undermine the worst attacks by revealing them to be nonsensical caricatures, but nonetheless the artist seems incapable of imagining that there are many voters, particularly those who don't know that much about Obama, who will see this image flashed on their television screens or attached to chain e-mails and think, "I knew there was something about that Obama I didn't like, and now I see what it is!"

by MNPundit on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 04:40:33 PM EST

They'll say, "I knew there was something about the terrorist, flag-burning, Bin Laden-loving, Muslim with the 60s anarchist black power wife i didn't like, and now I see what it was?"

Get real.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 04:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I think that you should get real (none / 0)

You're not dealing with a full deck here.

People were gulled by Swiftboaters, and that was a 527 organization sponsoring a bunch of lying political commercials.

This episode may make Blitt notorious, but I just wonder how much mileage he'll get from it.

An untypical Negro

http://thisblksistaspage.wordpress.com

by blksista (gab1954@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I think that you should get real (none / 1)

Yeah, exactly -- the swiftboaters totally made something up and managed to make it stick. There wasn't the slightest hint of reality in it at all. Didn't matter. And yet you keep saying this will give them something to attack Obama about. They'll be using race, "un-American", his wife and family, Muslim, and whatever else their sick imaginations come up with. They don't need the New Yorker or anything else to find lies to tell about Obama. All you're doing is giving them credit for needing some seed of truth in their propaganda.

All this whiny hysteria does nothing but confirm Obama's most vulnerable point: that he and his followers are weak, naive, and politically inept. Way to shoot ourselves in the ass.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 06:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I think that you should get real (none / 0)

They don't need the New Yorker or anything else to find lies to tell about Obama.

No but it sure as hell helps them sell it.

by MNPundit on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 11:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How many people buy it? (none / 0)

I'm going to venture a guess-90% of the people who actually read the New Yorker are already voting for Obama. This is an outrage because the tens of thousands who will only look at the cover are not even considered.

The New Yorker is elitist enough to believe that someone will actually open it and read what they write. That's stupid!

Michaela

by michaelmt (MrMichael_t@yahoo.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST